PART TWO "SET dogma maximizes distortion" -- Arnie Krueger Lie No 51291

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
ÿ the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.

Let's see what the words mean before we make the same sort of
foolish, zero-science, zero-brains, bottom of the food-tree mistake
Krueger made about the musicians:

"usual" i.e. normal, customary or typical. Okay, that is what we
do, we build...

"SET" i.e. single-ended triode amps.

"dogma" i.e. a set of beliefs that a religious, political,
philosophical or moral group holds to be true. Okay. We are not a
religious or a political group because we have no articles of faith
(we're ecumenical about silicon or tubes as long as it is melted
sand) nor any desire to proselytize the unwashed. But RAT is definitely
a philosophical and moral group, as the purpose of our hobby is high
fidelity, an attachment to truth in culture and life, which we usually
interpret as decently flat amps.

"maximizing" i.e. to make something as large as possible. Whether
we want that depends on what is to be made larger. Most of us don't,
for instance, need penis enlargement; those who do, like the thief Bret
Ludwig, is anyway a treacherous little slimeball Krueger can take away
to RAO with him free of charge.

"distortion" i.e. altering a signal so that it becomes unclear or
unrecognizable. No, that's very definitely not us.

So, you claim, Krueger, that it is our usual practice, supported by our
moral philosophy, to make the distortion in our SET amplifiers as large
as possible?

Is this patent absurdity a troll, Krueger. or do you really believe
your own dumb ****? If so, prove that we design our SET amplifiers to
"maximize distortion".

Andre Jute
"A PR man who believes his own spin has reached an advanced stage of
alcoholism." -- Pip Theodore

Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"


bravo!
every psychotic midget must include in signature that he is psychotic midget

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Quite simply, Jute DOES NOT HAVE TWO PhD's, nor does he have one PhD; quite
simply, JUTE HAS NO ADVANCED DEGREE. I seriously doubt that he even has
*any* degrees! And yet, you, John Byrns, defend Jute's claim to "Dr. Jute"
as justifiable? Shame on you! I

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Andre, I always thought you were more sophisticated, more creative than
this; yet here you are, reduced to defending yourself with nonsensical
childrens' word games. (Sure, I always knew that you were scum, a grifter
through and through, but at least you put on a good show.)
We all know you lied about the patents; the searches have been done, the
truth is out. And we all saw your last-ditch guilt-ridden attempt to
disclaim the patents. But now, you are reduced to word games.

Ha! Reduced to word games to avoid having to admit defeat! You loose,
Jute; what's even worse is that you loose badly: you are a coward and a
thief, cowering behind your mum's petticoats as your misdeeds are exposed
for all to see.

At last we have it: Andre Jute, a thief without honor, the lowest of the
low!

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

I have read your review of the RDH. Let me be straightforward and state
from the start that I believe the primary purpose of this review appearing
on your site is to give readers the impression that you are qualified to
comment on the book and thereby to prop up your dubious claims of technical
expertise. If, in fact, as you say you have read the book from cover to
cover, it is clear from your postings and published schematics (I hesitate
to call them "designs") that you absorbed precious little. I wouldn't run
the risk of dragging myself into another pointless battle with you, Andre,
except that I feel a duty from time to time to remind readers that you are
not at all what you paint yourself to be.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

The real concern is Jute's nine year long campaign to characterize
the exposure of his frauds as a flame. He is nearing the point that
otherwise decent people are so disgusted by the necessity of exposing
his rampant dishonesties and attempted thefts that perhaps they will
stop.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

I Strongly recommend that
you ignore anything Jute says, as it is either incorrect, phony, or unsafe.
Anything that he posts here, or that exist on his poison web site that
sounds even slightly technically useful, was stolen. The rest of the
information is phony. He has not had an original thought in his life.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Andre Jute made the claim that he holds three international patents. One
in pipe laying equipment, one in internal combustion engines and one in
automotive suspensions. Frank Deutschman goes out and does the research and
comes up with NO PATENTS on god's green earth for an Andre Jute. Not in the
past one hundred years anyway.

[Robert Morein]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message

The above seven posts are forgeries by Brian L. McCarty.

[Bret Ludwig]

Nonetheless they are correct regarding the fraud, mountebank, loser
and general bum Andre(w) "Jute" McCoy. About all he hasn't claimed so
far to be is a porn star, because the evidence clearly would never
stand up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> ÿ the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
>
> Let's see what the words mean before we make the same
> sort of
> foolish, zero-science, zero-brains, bottom of the
> food-tree mistake Krueger made about the musicians:
>
> "usual" i.e. normal, customary or typical. Okay, that is
> what we
> do, we build...
>
> "SET" i.e. single-ended triode amps.
>
> "dogma" i.e. a set of beliefs that a religious, political,
> philosophical or moral group holds to be true. Okay. We
> are not a religious or a political group because we have
> no articles of faith (we're ecumenical about silicon or
> tubes as long as it is melted
> sand) nor any desire to proselytize the unwashed. But RAT
> is definitely a philosophical and moral group, as the
> purpose of our hobby is high fidelity, an attachment to
> truth in culture and life, which we usually interpret as
> decently flat amps.

Flat response and SET amplifiers don't mix well if operation into normal
speaker loads is considered. SET amps tend to have far higher output
impedances than good SS amps and this means that their response is highly
depdenent on speaker impedance curves.

> "maximizing" i.e. to make something as large as possible.
> Whether
> we want that depends on what is to be made larger. Most
> of us don't, for instance, need penis enlargement; those
> who do, like the thief Bret Ludwig, is anyway a
> treacherous little slimeball Krueger can take away to RAO
> with him free of charge.

Note that this response has no useful responsive content once the gratuitous
personal attack is removed.


> "distortion" i.e. altering a signal so that it becomes
> unclear or unrecognizable. No, that's very definitely not
> us.

Wrong. Distortion is altering or size of a signal. Since SET amps have
relatively large amounts of nonlinear distortion, they alter the shape of
signals they amplify. Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
response with loudspeaker loads, they alter the size of the signal from
frequency to frequency.

> So, you claim, Krueger, that it is our usual practice,
> supported by our moral philosophy, to make the distortion
> in our SET amplifiers as large as possible?

So it seems.

> Is this patent absurdity a troll, Krueger. or do you
> really believe your own dumb ****? If so, prove that we
> design our SET amplifiers to "maximize distortion".

See above individual responses to your comments, Jute.

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > ÿ the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Let's see what the words mean before we make the same
> > sort of
> > foolish, zero-science, zero-brains, bottom of the
> > food-tree mistake Krueger made about the musicians:
> >
> > "usual" i.e. normal, customary or typical. Okay, that is
> > what we
> > do, we build...
> >
> > "SET" i.e. single-ended triode amps.
> >
> > "dogma" i.e. a set of beliefs that a religious, political,
> > philosophical or moral group holds to be true. Okay. We
> > are not a religious or a political group because we have
> > no articles of faith (we're ecumenical about silicon or
> > tubes as long as it is melted
> > sand) nor any desire to proselytize the unwashed. But RAT
> > is definitely a philosophical and moral group, as the
> > purpose of our hobby is high fidelity, an attachment to
> > truth in culture and life, which we usually interpret as
> > decently flat amps.
>
> Flat response and SET amplifiers don't mix well if operation into normal
> speaker loads is considered.

Forgive me, Arny, but you are not now speaking to people who have to go
buy high street **** when they want speakers. Normal speakers are for
the underprivilieged. You are speaking to people who could, if they
wanted to, build speakers to suit a SET amp. Instead, being logical, we
generally choose our speakers first. You are speaking to people who are
capable of designing and building their own speakers if they don't like
what they can buy.

>SET amps tend to have far higher output
> impedances than good SS amps and this means that their response is highly
> depdenent on speaker impedance curves.

You're assuming that an SS amp is the paradigm. There is a great deal
wrong with SS amps for the most refined listeners, the main thing being
that they cannot be built without NFB without becoming horrendously
impractical. And listen, sonny, you're writing to a guy who built and
operates a pair of 120lb monoblocs that were once a stereo amp, so when
I say "horrendously impractical", that's a long way over the edge of
reason already

> > "maximizing" i.e. to make something as large as possible.
> > Whether
> > we want that depends on what is to be made larger. Most
> > of us don't, for instance, need penis enlargement; those
> > who do, like the thief Bret Ludwig, is anyway a
> > treacherous little slimeball Krueger can take away to RAO
> > with him free of charge.

> Note that this response has no useful responsive content once the gratuitous
> personal attack is removed.

>Usual deceitful Krueger "reasoning". Did they have a debating society at the little provincial bus conductor's college where your ticked was punched,Krueger? You couldn't have been much chop in it if you still do this kindergarten **** after I have repeatedly caught you out. Of course there is content in that response:

(1) "maximizing" i.e. to make something as large as possible.

(2) whether we want maximization depends on what is being maximized,
for which purpose, and who is offering to do the enlargment.

(3) In short, if it dick-stretching by Krueger, we don't want it for
any purpose.

(4) Our dicks are big enough already.

> > "distortion" i.e. altering a signal so that it becomes
> > unclear or unrecognizable. No, that's very definitely not
> > us.
>
> Wrong. Distortion is altering or size of a signal.

Not wrong at all. Your claim is that we make the distortion as large as
possible. That would make the music unclear and soon unrecognizable.

>Since SET amps have
> relatively large amounts of nonlinear distortion, they alter the shape of
> signals they amplify.

All amps do. It is how they do it that is important beyond a certain
level of flatness below which distortion ceases to be perceptible. It
is no problem whatsoever to make a SET amp correctly designed and
applied flat for any practical purpose. Vanishing THD is chased by
people who haven't put their minds in gear in thirty years.

>Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency

I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
the poor who have no choice but solid state.

> response with loudspeaker loads, they alter the size of the signal from
> frequency to frequency.

This is a "how much has the dirt on the plate been diluted by the
washing water" argument. All amplifiers have problems with speakers.
The wretchednessnes (a carefully chosen word) of even the finest
speaker known to man will swamp the inadequacies of any even reasonably
acceptable amplifier. There are no speakers technically more advanced
than the crudest, most minimally acceptable amps. The question is how
the problem arrives at the ears.

> > So, you claim, Krueger, that it is our usual practice,
> > supported by our moral philosophy, to make the distortion
> > in our SET amplifiers as large as possible?
>
> So it seems.

You're a total fool. It is a demonstrably false statement. You have now
twice made it and are thick enough to try to defend it. Are you
surprised I treat you with contempt?

> > Is this patent absurdity a troll, Krueger. or do you
> > really believe your own dumb ****? If so, prove that we
> > design our SET amplifiers to "maximize distortion".
>
> See above individual responses to your comments, Jute.

No, what you have been wittering on about is the intrinsic problems of
any device. Your crude subtext is that solid state devices are
superior. That is untrue. Solid state is gimmicked right by tons of
negative feedback which manufactures its own and far worse problems. A
DHT triode is more intrinsically linear than a solid state device.

What you want to focus on is the damage that the engineering
corrections do to the quality of the sound emanating from each device.
It does less damage to the DHT than to a solid state device.

And, if you want to discuss this sensibly, which of course you don't,
you want to start comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges
as you continually try to do. For a start, if your test is an 8W SET
amp into "normal" speakers you're not conducting a test, you're
torturing small animals because you have nothing better to do. A 300B,
for instance, should be operated only with highly sensitive speakers
and should be limited in output by a very high impedance, which
automatically flattens the sound.

What disturbs me is your poverty-stricken mindset that solid state is
the paradigm and SET must conform. It's laughable.

Adjust your mindset to sensitive point source speakers and SET amps
that trade in most of their power for silence, and SET amp is as flat
as a silicon amp at the ears and doesn't have the disturbing artifacts
of NFB that is unavoidable with a transistor amp.

Or adjust your mindset to Quad panels and I will build you, for the
price of the largest BMW with all the trimmings, an 80W DHT SET amp
that will shiver your spine and, if you're mindless enough to insist on
house-shaking bass, you can drive the woofer with a solid state amp. (I
don't, of course: I no longer use woofers and when I did I drove it
with PPP amps in Class A/B with at least 20W in Class A, beyond which
it doesn't matter because you're out of the room like a scalded cat.)

This isn't about technicalities, Krueger. We got those beat in SET and
when the job gets too big for SET, we have no problem with PP, nor with
solid state. Our socalled religion of SET is only in your inattentive,
closed mind (1). So this is about you being a deceitful, and it must be
said from your style of debate also that you are thick, little control
freak too cheap or poor to afford real speakers and real amps.

Andre Jute

(1) If you listened more than you talk, Krueger, you would long since
have discovered that my favourite amp fo all time is not SET, it isn't
even DHT triode.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Andre Jute scores a point.
SET amplifiers cannot be refuted on the basis of technical inferiority.
They can only be refuted if they are unable to satisfy the listener.

Perhaps there is an unbridgeable dichotomy of taste.
Bit can each side respect the sensibilities of the other?

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
>
> I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
> Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
> the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
> talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
> high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
> never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
> not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
> the poor who have no choice but solid state.

Lovely !

I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.

This confirms my suspicion that you are in fact completely technically illiterate. In fact you could hardly have posted anything much more idiotic.

Any decently aware kid hobbyist would understand the interaction betwen 2 impedances where one varies with frequency. Even that basic fact is beyond you.

Now go back and do some homework on 'voltage dividers'. More likely you'll ring up whoever that bloke is who ghost writes the limited tech stuff your site is so short of.

Power level affects frequency response my arse !

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Andre Jute scores a point.
> SET amplifiers cannot be refuted on the basis of technical inferiority.
> They can only be refuted if they are unable to satisfy the listener.

> Perhaps there is an unbridgeable dichotomy of taste.
> Bit can each side respect the sensibilities of the other?

The "sensibility" you're ascribing to the Krooborg goes something like this:
"Doesn't matter what it sounds like as long as doesn't sound truly awful
when driving any mass-market speakers."

Why should anybody with a modicum of taste respect that "sensibility"?

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Andre Jute scores a point.
> > SET amplifiers cannot be refuted on the basis of technical inferiority.
> > They can only be refuted if they are unable to satisfy the listener.
>
> > Perhaps there is an unbridgeable dichotomy of taste.
> > Bit can each side respect the sensibilities of the other?
>
> The "sensibility" you're ascribing to the Krooborg goes something like this:
> "Doesn't matter what it sounds like as long as doesn't sound truly awful
> when driving any mass-market speakers."
>
> Why should anybody with a modicum of taste respect that "sensibility"?


Do tell the group about your bespoke speakers, Middiarse. And your SET
amps. Oh, and a bit on your vinyl rig, please.

LOL!!!!!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

"Joseph Welch" is, of course, Brian L. McCarty.

I suggest we ignore him.

Remember, Brian, your web businesses are destroyed.

[Andre Jute]

The muzak mangler and fat DJ Graham Stevenson aka Poopie sent this
attempt at humour:
Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > >Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
> >
> > I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
> > Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
> > the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
> > talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
> > high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
> > never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
> > not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
> > the poor who have no choice but solid state.
>
> Lovely !
>
> I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.

Once again you have despicably cut the context in your attempt to score
a dishonest point, or it may just be that that you are totally ignorant
of tube electronics or deficient in understanding plain English.

Christ, anyone who believed the uninformed spite you spout would have
to parallel thirty or forty WE300B to be acceptable to your pocket
radio mentality.

Andre Jute

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> The muzak mangler and fat DJ Graham Stevenson aka Poopie sent this
> attempt at humour:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > >Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
> > >
> > > I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
> > > Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
> > > the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
> > > talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
> > > high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
> > > never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
> > > not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
> > > the poor who have no choice but solid state.
> >
> > Lovely !
> >
> > I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.
>
> Once again you have despicably cut the context in your attempt to score
> a dishonest point, or it may just be that that you are totally ignorant
> of tube electronics or deficient in understanding plain English.

Yes I do cut to the point. I'm not interested in your interminable off-topic rambling. The point above was specific and related to frequency response. You
answered by means of an 'in-line' reply. It was therefore so trimmed.

I note that in your 'big fight' post you have made the same error of suggesting that power levels are somehow connected with frequency response yet again.

Worse still is thus utter cretinous **** that follows !

"There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
its response is flat "

Utter garbage through and through.

There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.

You clearly don't know the first damn thing about the reflected impedance on the primary. It's not constant you moron ! It's a factor of the load - not some
fixed value on a transformer datasheet. A speaker's *nominal impedance* is indeed *nominal*. For a single 8 ohm driver it likely varies from ~ 5 ohms to > 100
ohms across the audio band.

You are a posturing know-nothing jerk-off with an overdevolped attention seeking personality. Your knowledge of electronics is shockingly abysmal. No wonder you
come to bizarre conclusions.


Graham

[Andre Jute]

The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
less sensitive speaker. The difficulties with the
tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
short enough for your attention span?

Andre Jute
Pooperscooper

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > The muzak mangler and fat DJ Graham Stevenson aka Poopie sent this
> > attempt at humour:
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
> > > >
> > > > I've already dismissed that with the contempt it deserves. Once again,
> > > > Krueger, you aren't talking to people who have to hog out the tube to
> > > > the maximum power because they bought "normal speakers". You are
> > > > talking to people who routinely run a 40W Pdmax tube loaded with such a
> > > > high impedance that it puts out less than 4W into speakers that will
> > > > never, ever, demand a whole watt. Get it through your thick head that
> > > > not all devices have to be run at maximum power; that applies only to
> > > > the poor who have no choice but solid state.
> > >
> > > Lovely !
> > >
> > > I guess you don't realise that *power levels* have *NOTHING WHATEVER* to do with frequency response abberations caused by a SET's highish output impedance.
> >
> > Once again you have despicably cut the context in your attempt to score
> > a dishonest point, or it may just be that that you are totally ignorant
> > of tube electronics or deficient in understanding plain English.
>
> Yes I do cut to the point. I'm not interested in your interminable off-topic rambling. The point above was specific and related to frequency response. You
> answered by means of an 'in-line' reply. It was therefore so trimmed.
>
> I note that in your 'big fight' post you have made the same error of suggesting that power levels are somehow connected with frequency response yet again.
>
> Worse still is thus utter cretinous **** that follows !
>
> "There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
> its response is flat "
>
> Utter garbage through and through.
>
> There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.
>
> You clearly don't know the first damn thing about the reflected impedance on the primary. It's not constant you moron ! It's a factor of the load - not some
> fixed value on a transformer datasheet. A speaker's *nominal impedance* is indeed *nominal*. For a single 8 ohm driver it likely varies from ~ 5 ohms to > 100
> ohms across the audio band.
>
> You are a posturing know-nothing jerk-off with an overdevolped attention seeking personality. Your knowledge of electronics is shockingly abysmal. No wonder you
> come to bizarre conclusions.
>
>
> Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
> to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
> the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
> more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
> to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
> less sensitive speaker.

Oh - you're talking about the *transfer characteristic* ! Yes I know all that. Trade off between max power and what I prefer to call *linearity* as just about any
design engineer does. The term *flatness* is invariably used to refer to frequency response.

So why did you reply in this vein when Arny was talking about a flat *frequency response* ?

They are 2 different things you know !

> The difficulties with the
> tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
> one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
> load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
> simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
> desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
> short enough for your attention span?

Why not address yourself to the issue of *frequency response* that both Arny and I ( and Trevor Wilson in another post ) have been badgering you about ?

I know that the transfer characteristic isn't' flat' or more accurately to say *linear*. The non-linearity ( where it's not 'flat' by your terminology ) is what leads
to distortion.

So. How about it ? How about frequency response ? Too tricky for you. Not keen on complex numbers and their modulus ?

Graham

[Andre Jute]

What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
artificial misunderstandings to increase his own exposure where he is
not wanted, flings abuse on the base of those fake misunderstandings,
then does not apologize when his stupidity is exposed.

Unsigned out of contempt

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > The shinbone is attached to the kneebone and the kneebone is attached
> > to the ... If you choose sensitive speakers, then you don't need to hog
> > the tube out to maximum power, then you can operate it over a short
> > more linear transfer curve, then it is flatter than the tube you needed
> > to load with half the impedance to get twice the power to drive the
> > less sensitive speaker.
>
> Oh - you're talking about the *transfer characteristic* ! Yes I know all that. Trade off between max power and what I prefer to call *linearity* as just about any
> design engineer does. The term *flatness* is invariably used to refer to frequency response.
>
> So why did you reply in this vein when Arny was talking about a flat *frequency response* ?
>
> They are 2 different things you know !
>
> > The difficulties with the
> > tube-transformer-speaker interface is the same in both cases, except
> > one amp is intrinsically flatter before the speaker replaces the test
> > load. That is a connection between power and flatness. It is very
> > simple, Poopie, but if you resist the simplicity of genius out of a
> > desire to look like an expert, what can I do with such a fool? Is this
> > short enough for your attention span?
>
> Why not address yourself to the issue of *frequency response* that both Arny and I ( and Trevor Wilson in another post ) have been badgering you about ?
>
> I know that the transfer characteristic isn't' flat' or more accurately to say *linear*. The non-linearity ( where it's not 'flat' by your terminology ) is what leads
> to distortion.
>
> So. How about it ? How about frequency response ? Too tricky for you. Not keen on complex numbers and their modulus ?
>
> Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
> artificial misunderstandings

Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding. Oh - but of course you're technically challenged and never
previously had to use the right words to describe those things you barely understand - have you ?

You charlatan, impostor and buffoon-like idiot wordsmith.

'Flatness' is a stupid word to describe the transfer characterisitc. It's *not* flat. It's a slope. That's why we talk about slope impedance / resistance. Well... real
electronic designers do anyway.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

Graham Poopie Stevenson, a fat DJ, wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
> > artificial misunderstandings
>
> Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding.

No, no, no, Poopie. I'm the professional writer here, including of
technical books, including within the technical books some on
engineering. The convention is that when *you* misuse a word, you're an
idiot but when a "good writer" (that's a formal definition, check the
preface to the Complete Oxford) like me misuses a word, I thereby gives
the word a new meaning; furthermore, when *you* invent a new word,
you're too slack or illiterate to use a thesaurus but when a good
writer like me invents a new word it is an artistic act and the
dictionaries put it first in their supplements and then in their main
sections after a decent interval for the mouthfoamers to abuse me as a
neologist. Here's one I invented to immortalize a helpful lady at
several publishers and my London literary representatives: "alindavan
-- an artist's friend at court". Full lists on request,

>Oh - but of course you're technically challenged and never
> previously had to use the right words to describe those things you barely understand - have you ?

Gee, Poopie, all you had to do was ask and I woulda dumbed down the
language to jumped-up poly "engineer"-speak just for you. But then the
other guys woulda kicked me to death for the insult of addressing them
in pidgin just so you can understand. Can't win 'em all.

Chris Hornbeck has already explained to you that, far from barely
understanding, I included all the parameters necessary under the
conditions pertaining to the thread in which my text appeared and
considered them properly. Here is his letter again:

****
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 05:01:39 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >"There is no problem making an SE amp as flat as necessary even without NFB. You just choose sensitive speakers and then load up the impedance on the plate until
> >its response is flat "
> >
> >Utter garbage through and through.
> >
> >There is *NO* relationship between speaker sensitivity and flat frequency response whatever.
Chris Hornbeck replies:
> Andre's point goes to the dominant mechanism of frequency
> response limitation in valve amplifiers, the interaction
> of valve source impedance and load impedance at the valves'
> plates. Some parasitic reactances matter here, but all
> are thought of as a single design issue among folks who
> do it regularly.
>
> Distortion, frequency response and speaker damping are all
> traded off against ultimate power output and "efficiency".
>
> You doubtless know all this stuff when spelled out, but
> haven't been around here to know the conventions of r.a.t
> language. It's *not* without precedent...
>
> And definitely not "garbage". Totally un-called for.
>
> Good fortune,
>
> Chris Hornbeck

****

> You charlatan, impostor and buffoon-like idiot wordsmith.

Miaooooo-ooo-oo-o-w....

How can I be charlatan when Chris has just demonstrated that I know
what I am talking about? The rest of your abuse isn't precise enough
for me to extract a singular meaning (ask a literate friend to explain
the technical term to you).

> 'Flatness' is a stupid word to describe the transfer characterisitc. It's *not* flat. It's a slope.

A slope is only a flat horizontal line turned to an angle. Either can
have frequencies dancing along its length, which what we're really
discussing. Open your mind, Poopie, listen to the music of my words.
Don't resist now, open your mind, let the knowledge flow.

>That's why we talk about slope impedance / resistance. Well... real
> electronic designers do anyway.

Sure we do, Poopie. But we do it behind your back so as not to
encourage a useless, unimaginative and ignorant gatecrasher.

> Graham

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Dec 2005 02:10:57 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
>artificial misunderstandings to increase his own exposure where he is
>not wanted, flings abuse on the base of those fake misunderstandings,
>then does not apologize when his stupidity is exposed.

Another perfect example of projection from RAT's resident sociopath.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Dec 2005 06:23:23 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>Graham Poopie Stevenson, a fat DJ, wrote:
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> > What I'm not keen on is a slimeball you, Stevenson, who creates
>> > artificial misunderstandings
>>
>> Maybe if you learnt how to use the *right words* to describe things there would be no misunderstanding.
>
>No, no, no, Poopie. I'm the professional writer here, including of
>technical books, including within the technical books some on
>engineering. The convention is that when *you* misuse a word, you're an
>idiot but when a "good writer" (that's a formal definition, check the
>preface to the Complete Oxford) like me misuses a word, I thereby gives
>the word a new meaning;

There really is no end to your arrogance and self-deceit, is there?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > ÿ the usual SET dogma of maximizing distortion.
> >
> > Let's see what the words mean before we make the same
> > sort of
> > foolish, zero-science, zero-brains, bottom of the
> > food-tree mistake Krueger made about the musicians:
> >
> > "usual" i.e. normal, customary or typical. Okay, that is
> > what we
> > do, we build...
> >
> > "SET" i.e. single-ended triode amps.
> >
> > "dogma" i.e. a set of beliefs that a religious, political,
> > philosophical or moral group holds to be true. Okay. We
> > are not a religious or a political group because we have
> > no articles of faith (we're ecumenical about silicon or
> > tubes as long as it is melted
> > sand) nor any desire to proselytize the unwashed. But RAT
> > is definitely a philosophical and moral group, as the
> > purpose of our hobby is high fidelity, an attachment to
> > truth in culture and life, which we usually interpret as
> > decently flat amps.
>
> Flat response and SET amplifiers don't mix well if operation into normal
> speaker loads is considered. SET amps tend to have far higher output
> impedances than good SS amps and this means that their response is highly
> depdenent on speaker impedance curves.
>
> > "maximizing" i.e. to make something as large as possible.
> > Whether
> > we want that depends on what is to be made larger. Most
> > of us don't, for instance, need penis enlargement; those
> > who do, like the thief Bret Ludwig, is anyway a
> > treacherous little slimeball Krueger can take away to RAO
> > with him free of charge.
>
> Note that this response has no useful responsive content once the gratuitous
> personal attack is removed.
>
>
> > "distortion" i.e. altering a signal so that it becomes
> > unclear or unrecognizable. No, that's very definitely not
> > us.
>
> Wrong. Distortion is altering or size of a signal. Since SET amps have
> relatively large amounts of nonlinear distortion, they alter the shape of
> signals they amplify. Since SET amps tend to have very nonflat frequency
> response with loudspeaker loads, they alter the size of the signal from
> frequency to frequency.
>
> > So, you claim, Krueger, that it is our usual practice,
> > supported by our moral philosophy, to make the distortion
> > in our SET amplifiers as large as possible?
>
> So it seems.
>
> > Is this patent absurdity a troll, Krueger. or do you
> > really believe your own dumb ****? If so, prove that we
> > design our SET amplifiers to "maximize distortion".
>
> See above individual responses to your comments, Jute.

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute wrote :




Nothing !!!!!
I'm afraid he has done a heart attack.
Does someone know where he lives to send him an ambulance.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[paul packer]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:49:10 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>Andre Jute scores a point.

I didn't realize you were umpiring, Robert.

[Pooh Bear]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Andre Jute scores a point.
> SET amplifiers cannot be refuted on the basis of technical inferiority.

Yes they can.

Graham

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

The real concern is Jute's nine year long campaign to characterize
the exposure of his frauds as a flame. He is nearing the point that
otherwise decent people are so disgusted by the necessity of exposing
his rampant dishonesties and attempted thefts that perhaps they will
stop.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"


bravo!
every psychotic midget must include in signature that he is psychotic midget

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Quite simply, Jute DOES NOT HAVE TWO PhD's, nor does he have one PhD; quite
simply, JUTE HAS NO ADVANCED DEGREE. I seriously doubt that he even has
*any* degrees! And yet, you, John Byrns, defend Jute's claim to "Dr. Jute"
as justifiable? Shame on you! I

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Andre, I always thought you were more sophisticated, more creative than
this; yet here you are, reduced to defending yourself with nonsensical
childrens' word games. (Sure, I always knew that you were scum, a grifter
through and through, but at least you put on a good show.)
We all know you lied about the patents; the searches have been done, the
truth is out. And we all saw your last-ditch guilt-ridden attempt to
disclaim the patents. But now, you are reduced to word games.

Ha! Reduced to word games to avoid having to admit defeat! You loose,
Jute; what's even worse is that you loose badly: you are a coward and a
thief, cowering behind your mum's petticoats as your misdeeds are exposed
for all to see.

At last we have it: Andre Jute, a thief without honor, the lowest of the
low!

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

I have read your review of the RDH. Let me be straightforward and state
from the start that I believe the primary purpose of this review appearing
on your site is to give readers the impression that you are qualified to
comment on the book and thereby to prop up your dubious claims of technical
expertise. If, in fact, as you say you have read the book from cover to
cover, it is clear from your postings and published schematics (I hesitate
to call them "designs") that you absorbed precious little. I wouldn't run
the risk of dragging myself into another pointless battle with you, Andre,
except that I feel a duty from time to time to remind readers that you are
not at all what you paint yourself to be.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

The real concern is Jute's nine year long campaign to characterize
the exposure of his frauds as a flame. He is nearing the point that
otherwise decent people are so disgusted by the necessity of exposing
his rampant dishonesties and attempted thefts that perhaps they will
stop.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

I Strongly recommend that
you ignore anything Jute says, as it is either incorrect, phony, or unsafe.
Anything that he posts here, or that exist on his poison web site that
sounds even slightly technically useful, was stolen. The rest of the
information is phony. He has not had an original thought in his life.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
. com...

> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"

Andre Jute made the claim that he holds three international patents. One
in pipe laying equipment, one in internal combustion engines and one in
automotive suspensions. Frank Deutschman goes out and does the research and
comes up with NO PATENTS on god's green earth for an Andre Jute. Not in the
past one hundred years anyway.